Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26673643›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2015

Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy.

Norman Daniels, Thalia Porteny, Julian Urritia

Erratum issuedAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Norman DanielsDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Thalia PortenyInterfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Julian UrritiaInterfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All societies face the need to make judgments about what interventions (both public health and personal medical) to provide to their populations under reasonable resource constraints. Their decisions should be informed by good evidence and arguments from health technology assessment (HTA). But if HTA restricts itself to evaluations of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, it risks being viewed as insufficient to guide health decision-makers; if it addresses other issues, such as budget impact, equity, and financial protection, it may be accused of overreaching. But the risk of overreaching can be reduced by embedding HTA in a fair, deliberative process that meets the conditions required by accountability for reasonableness.

Indexed as

Decision Making, OrganizationalDelivery of Health CareHealth Care RationingHumansSocial ResponsibilityTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAccountability for ReasonablenessBudget ImpactCost-effectivenessEfficacyEquityFairnessFinancial ProtectionHealth Technology Assessment (HTA)LegitimacySafety

Identifiers

PMID26673643
PMCPMC4676965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.